Muslim threats force out disabled teacher with dog

[ScreamingEagle]

After you convince gay people they can't be parents, who will you turn on next that might have kids that might be picked on because of their parents' lifestyle?

How about we start with the polygamists?

No, you are. You claim gays shouldn't have children because someone might pick on the kids for having gay parents. You don't care about the kids, if you did, you'd be angry at the ones doing the harassing.

Kids picking on each other is just a symptom of the real problem. Don't start picking on them. That's just idiotic liberalism attempting to deny the truth and force PC behavior on others.

Gay marriage has a negative impact on children. Larkinn was denied his real father from the beginning of his life...can't blame him for being angry.

 

[Yurt]

Veering back a bit to the original topic…

In a Muslim country both jillian and Larkinn's two mommies would be buried up to their necks and stoned to death.

It's pretty amusing to watch liberals burp up their leftist propaganda and hatred for harmless Christians while they deny and even defend actual Muslim religious threats to their dear right of "freedom from religion". Feeble-minded liberals "tolerate" "multicultural" differences that are obviously causing harm to American society yet they become rabid antagonists against law-abiding Christians who only want to support life and maintain our good society.

MN Muslims cause a handicapped student teacher to leave…afraid for his service dog.

MN Muslim taxi drivers refuse to carry passengers with seeing-eye dogs.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/muslim-cabbies-wont-carry-seeing-eye-dogs-in-australia

MN Muslim taxi drivers refuse to carry passengers with liquor.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/25/oppenheim.cabbies/index.html

MN Muslims institute Islamic Studies in a tax-payer funded school.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61129

Why is the ACLU out to lunch in MN?

Liberals are Christian-bashing, gay-loving idiots.

exactly. go to muslim countries and live an open gay lifestyle.

a question to those who support gay marriage:

do you support polygamy?

 

[Shogun]

as long as it's conducted between consenting ADULTS (key word) I don't have the slightest problem with polygamy. I feel the same way about homosexual relationships too. I had no problem throwing Bernie Ward under the bus for his actions. I'd expect polygamists who rely on 13 year old girls to receive the same.


Actually, Your question reminds of all that old hippy free love crap from back in the day. Indeed, this is one of the things I didn't really gel with while reading Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. It's not what I'd choose, but, as long as it's adults making their own choices rather than kids being used like a sacrament then so be it.

 

[jillian]

exactly. go to muslim countries and live an open gay lifestyle.

a question to those who support gay marriage:

do you support polygamy?

I don't have any problem with Larkinn being raised by two moms. By most societal criteria, they were very successful at their job. But I was raised by a mom and dad (both of whom are still alive and well, thank you very much), so I don't quite know where SE's getting his fantasies from.

I'm also not sure why what muslim countries do has any bearing whatsoever on what we do here. Why is it even being raised as a consideration? Do you care?

As to polygamy, I think if CONSENTING ADULTS choose that type of lifestyle, it's no skin off of my nose. Just don't tell me that it's okay for a 50 year old to take a bunch of 13 year olds as his "wives" in the name of some fake religion.

 

[Yurt]

I don't have any problem with Larkinn being raised by two moms. By most societal criteria, they were very successful at their job. But I was raised by a mom and dad (both of whom are still alive and well, thank you very much), so I don't quite know where SE's getting his fantasies from.

I'm also not sure why what muslim countries do has any bearing whatsoever on what we do here. Why is it even being raised as a consideration? Do you care?

As to polygamy, I think if CONSENTING ADULTS choose that type of lifestyle, it's no skin off of my nose. Just don't tell me that it's okay for a 50 year old to take a bunch of 13 year olds as his "wives" in the name of some fake religion.

so then you must think islam is a fake religion...

 

[jillian]

so then you must think islam is a fake religion...

I was referring specifically to the sect of pretend mormons.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, you are. You claim gays shouldn't have children because someone might pick on the kids for having gay parents. You don't care about the kids, if you did, you'd be angry at the ones doing the harassing.

Find where I said that, idiot. I said it was a selfish choice, given everyone knows they'll get harassed, and they decide to do it anyway.

I'm all for preventing the kids from the harassment in the first place. That doesn't mean putting them slap dab in the middle of a place where I know they'll get harassed and then dealing with the consequences. It means putting your own desires to the side for the best interests of the children.

You wouldn't know anything about that, because to you kids are a great experiment. You think it's okay for them to get hurt to prove that society needs to change. I, on the other hand, think you do what you can to keep them out of situations where they might get hurt, if humanly possible.

Otherwise, as I said (yawn) you're putting your own conceit before the child's welfare. Which is where you're standing.

This is a result of thinking kids are secondary to their parents, btw. Kids are disposable, don't count for much, etc. Nice to have around to make people look good, and who the hell cares what happens to them so long as you're making a point, right?

 

[Shogun]

I don't think that the FLDS is a fake religion at all. Hell, it follows the exact same budding routine that christianity did when rising out of judeism. The only difference between religion and cult is the size of the congregation.

However...


islam, buddhist, mormon, christian, atheist, santaria, whatever. If the premise of your faith relies upon sexually abusing kids then the state should intervene.

 

[AllieBaba]

exactly. go to muslim countries and live an open gay lifestyle.

a question to those who support gay marriage:

do you support polygamy?

Of course they don't. And while they support the choice of underage, unmarried, poverty-stricken and minority girls to have sex and obtain abortions with no consequences and no questions asked, they do not support the choice of underage girls to get married and have children.

Girls living in third-generation welfare homes where they have 10 sisters and brothers of different combinations of parents, a variety of children with different fathers, men coming and going at will in the household, girls dropping out of school at 13 and having babies on the other hand are simply not at risk, not being brainwashed, and only exercising their natural right to their own bodies when they prostitute themselves, get abortions, use drugs, and have babies. It's not our right to assume those families are brainwashing them, or in any way responsible for the fact that they're getting knocked up by every loser that comes into their lives.

 

[Ravi]

Find where I said that, idiot. I said it was a selfish choice, given everyone knows they'll get harassed, and they decide to do it anyway.

I'm all for preventing the kids from the harassment in the first place. That doesn't mean putting them slap dab in the middle of a place where I know they'll get harassed and then dealing with the consequences. It means putting your own desires to the side for the best interests of the children.

You wouldn't know anything about that, because to you kids are a great experiment. You think it's okay for them to get hurt to prove that society needs to change. I, on the other hand, think you do what you can to keep them out of situations where they might get hurt, if humanly possible.

Otherwise, as I said (yawn) you're putting your own conceit before the child's welfare. Which is where you're standing.

This is a result of thinking kids are secondary to their parents, btw. Kids are disposable, don't count for much, etc. Nice to have around to make people look good, and who the hell cares what happens to them so long as you're making a point, right?

If this were the 1950's you might have a point. Society has already changed. Kids get made fun of for their parents for different reasons. What you seem to be advocating is the wussification of children. lolol! Put them all in a plastic bubble because someone might laugh at their parents.

At least after pages of posts you actually conceded that the harassers are at fault.

 

[AllieBaba]

THanks for making my point that you don't give a shit about kids and think it's a good idea to put them in dangerous situations, if it makes the parents feel good about themselves.

 

[Shogun]

Allie, myself and Jillian specifically answered this question. Do our answers look like your generalization? Would you consider me something other than an arch liberal? I think I was pretty clear in my answer. Would you care clarify?

 

[Ravi]

THanks for making my point that you don't give a shit about kids and think it's a good idea to put them in dangerous situations, if it makes the parents feel good about themselves.

What dangerous situation are you speaking of?

 

[AllieBaba]

Any dangerous situation. You said (laughingly) you object to raising children as wussies, so apparently you're for putting them into situations where you know they'll suffer.

 

[Yurt]

I was referring specifically to the sect of pretend mormons.

islam supports the same thing, goes down to 9 year old girls, so islam, according to your logic is fake....are you willing to say islam is a fake religion?

 

[AllieBaba]

Allie, myself and Jillian specifically answered this question. Do our answers look like your generalization? Would you consider me something other than an arch liberal? I think I was pretty clear in my answer. Would you care clarify?

What question??? I looked at your posts and didn't see anything that was directed at me???

 

[Shogun]

What question??? I looked at your posts and didn't see anything that was directed at me???

Jillian and I answered Yurt's question about those who support gay relationships also accepting polygamy. Read our answers. They do not reflect your generalized accusation of a "liberal" response. I'm asking you, am I a liberal and did I just answer Yurt's question differently than your assumptions? I can give post numbers if you prefer.

 

[Ravi]

Any dangerous situation. You said (laughingly) you object to raising children as wussies, so apparently you're for putting them into situations where you know they'll suffer.

Yeah, sure, I enjoy throwing mine down a well.

Dope.

Being raised by gay people is a dangerous situation in your mind? How?

 

[AllieBaba]

I've addressed that so often I should just make a word document and cut and paste.
I don't condone sex with little kids, I never have. Which is why I brought up the subject months ago regarding abortion, and made the statement that underage girls getting abortions should be carefully investigated, starting with their homes.

My problem isn't that they're investigating. My problem is that they did it in a way they wouldn't do it anywhere else, on less evidence than they would ever consider anywhere else. My problem is that they split up these families, they're subjecting them to physical and DNA examination and testing against their will...but NOBODY will consider doing that with young girls in abortion clinics because that's violating their right.
I said then, and I'm saying now. No child has the right to privacy, no child has the right to choose what to do with her own body, and any child who comes up underaged and pregnant should be looked at as a victim. In an abortion clinic or a religious compound. It should be equal. And it's not.

THere's that.
Then there's the fact that they split these families up. The state doesn't split families up based upon underaged pregnancy, and they certainly don't remove children from homes because their mothers had them when they were under 18. The state doesn't remove children from the homes of women who allow their boyfriends to break their limbs, for pete's sakes. If the woman says the boyfriend will stay out of the house, that's good enough for the state, and the kid gets to stay. So what the hell is going on here? Why are these people so different? Don't lay that "brainwashing" crap on me, because every underaged girl in the world who has a baby has been "brainwashed" and nobody gives a shit and defends their right to protect their families, hold onto their babies, and refuse to name the fathers.

That's the problem. Either apply the law so all underaged girls have the right to choose what to do with their bodies (including getting married and having kids...or having sex and abortions...) or make the assumption that any underage girl who gets pregnant is a victim and investigate it as such.

 

[Yurt]

Jillian and I answered Yurt's question about those who support gay relationships also accepting polygamy. Read our answers. They do not reflect your generalized accusation of a "liberal" response. I'm asking you, am I a liberal and did I just answer Yurt's question differently than your assumptions? I can give post numbers if you prefer.

why is it you do not protest as loudly over polygamist's right to marriage? if there are other liberals like you and jillian out there, why the overwhelming silence on their rights and the overwhelming voice for gay marriage?